Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1968–1989 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nevada courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shepp v. Statered2 sentences1974As we previously noted, some “courts consider Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), to forbid reference to the fact that the privilege to remain silent was claimed in the face of custodial interrogation, and reverse without regard to the rule of harmless error.” Shepp v. State, 87 Nev. 179, 181 , 484 P.2d 563, 564 (1971). 1974As we previously noted, some “courts consider Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), to forbid reference to the fact that the privilege to remain silent was claimed in the face of custodial interrogation, and reverse without regard to the rule of harmless error.” Shepp v. State, 87 Nev. 179, 181 , 484 P.2d 563, 564 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Bakergreen2 sentences1968Its provisions are about the same as the prior law and I agree with the concurring opinion of Justice Thompson in Lee v. Baker, 77 Nev. 462, 469 , 366 P.2d 513, 517 (1961), wherein he stated, “I find no substantial difference between NRCP 61, effective January 1, 1953, and the prior law, NCL 8622.” That case states that the discretion vested in the appellate court must be guided by such applicable legal principles as may have become recognized as proper in determining the course of justice. 1968Its provisions are about the same as the prior law and I agree with the concurring opinion of Justice Thompson in Lee v. Baker, 77 Nev. 462, 469 , 366 P.2d 513, 517 (1961), wherein he stated, “I find no substantial difference between NRCP 61, effective January 1, 1953, and the prior law, NCL 8622.” That case states that the discretion vested in the appellate court must be guided by such applicable legal principles as may have become recognized as proper in determining the course of justice. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1974As we previously noted, some “courts consider Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), to forbid reference to the fact that the privilege to remain silent was claimed in the face of custodial interrogation, and reverse without regard to the rule of harmless error.” Shepp v. State, 87 Nev. 179, 181 , 484 P.2d 563, 564 (1971). 1974As we previously noted, some "courts consider Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), to forbid reference to the fact that the privilege to remain silent was claimed in the face of custodial interrogation, and reverse without regard to the rule of harmless error." Shepp v. State, 87 Nev. 179, 181 , 484 P.2d 563, 564 (1971). | 5 | 1968–1974 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1970In Guyette v. State, 84 Nev. 160 , 438 P.2d 244 (1968), we suggested that the rule of harmless error might be utilized in proper circumstances when any of the new procedural safeguards as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), are breached. 1968Although the High Court has not yet ruled that the doctrine of harmless error may be applied to a Miranda warning violation, the drift of its opinions would suggest that the rule of harmless error may be utilized when any of the new procedural safeguards, as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and Gi | 3 | 1968–1970 |
Escobedo v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1970In Guyette v. State, 84 Nev. 160 , 438 P.2d 244 (1968), we suggested that the rule of harmless error might be utilized in proper circumstances when any of the new procedural safeguards as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), are breached. 1968Although the High Court has not yet ruled that the doctrine of harmless error may be applied to a Miranda warning violation, the drift of its opinions would suggest that the rule of harmless error may be utilized when any of the new procedural safeguards, as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and Gi | 3 | 1968–1970 |
Gilbert v. California
green
2 sentences1970In Guyette v. State, 84 Nev. 160 , 438 P.2d 244 (1968), we suggested that the rule of harmless error might be utilized in proper circumstances when any of the new procedural safeguards as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), are breached. 1968Although the High Court has not yet ruled that the doctrine of harmless error may be applied to a Miranda warning violation, the drift of its opinions would suggest that the rule of harmless error may be utilized when any of the new procedural safeguards, as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and Gi | 3 | 1968–1970 |
Griffin v. California
green
2 sentences1970In Guyette v. State, 84 Nev. 160 , 438 P.2d 244 (1968), we suggested that the rule of harmless error might be utilized in proper circumstances when any of the new procedural safeguards as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), are breached. 1968Although the High Court has not yet ruled that the doctrine of harmless error may be applied to a Miranda warning violation, the drift of its opinions would suggest that the rule of harmless error may be utilized when any of the new procedural safeguards, as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965); Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964); Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and Gi | 3 | 1968–1970 |
Gordon v. Hurtado
green
2 sentences1989Gordon v. Hurtado, 91 Nev. 641 , 541 P.2d 533 (1975) (violations of constitutional and statutory prohibitions against judges commenting on evidence are subject to the rule of harmless error). 1989Gordon v. Hurtado, 91 Nev. 641 , 541 P.2d 533 (1975) (violations of constitutional and statutory prohibitions against judges commenting on evidence are subject to the rule of harmless error). | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Wheeler v. Twin Lakes Riding Stable, Inc.
green
1 sentence1989However, it is also established law that “violations of the constitutional and statutory prohibitions are subject to the rule of harmless error.” Gordon, 91 Nev. at 645 ; Wheeler, 88 Nev. at 487 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Guyette v. State
green
2 sentences1970In Guyette v. State, 84 Nev. 160 , 438 P.2d 244 (1968), we suggested that the rule of harmless error might be utilized in proper circumstances when any of the new procedural safeguards as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), are breached. 1970In Guyette v. State, 84 Nev. 160 , 438 P.2d 244 (1968), we suggested that the rule of harmless error might be utilized in proper circumstances when any of the new procedural safeguards as expressed in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), are breached. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.